LuckyLopez

Oh agreed, and Lockdown was just something else. But like I said, I seem to enjoy TNA a lot more consistently than most around here but I think the time between Slammiversary and BFG feels like its usually a lot emptier. Just looking back at the title pictures of the last two years of Victory Road/Hard Justice/No Surrender you have: 2007: Angle/Joe vs Team 3D with all belts on the line; Angle vs Joe in Winner Takes All; Angle vs Abyss The whole Winner Takes All could have been a big story and could have gotten Joe over huge but it was 2 months basically used to get Karen Angle over and then the whole thing was set back to where it was at No Surrender with Angle losing the X and Tag titles. 2006: Sting vs Joe vs Steiner vs Christian for #1 Contender; Sting vs Jarrett; Joe vs Jarrett non-title in Fans Revenge The whole build was for Sting/Jarrett which had been going for a year and was clearly set up for Hard Justice. But it just got dragged out with a main event #1 contender match on a show the champ didn't wrestle on then a non-title match vs Joe that had Joe in a bit of limbo while Sting was absent from that show. Maybe it just seems worse to me when its really common for the runs between the big shows. But this time of year feels worse to me for TNA, at least on the top of the card. Actually, now that I think of it something that has bugged me about TNA is that their PPVs are oddly paced as their "Big Ones" seem to be Destination X, Lockdown, Slammiversary, and BFG. But that's March, April, June, and October. TNA basically seems built to run strong during the spring/summer of March-June but then the July-September run before BFG seems to come as a bigger letdown and longer drag as a result. I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking it and they're just in a slump.

As someone who is a TNA fan and has enjoyed it quite a bit the last year (which seems to be VERY rare around here) I really have not enjoyed things post Slammiversary much at all. And post Victory Road I just think has been bad. Last week I hated the show and this week did very little for me. Some of the stories are just crap (Lethal/Dutt; Kaz; the Justice League thing) and some I just don't entirely get or want to see or are dragging. The one difference from what seems to be the general sentiment here is I loved the Kong/Taylor stuff. Absolutely LOVED it. And I have no real problem with Sky being fed to her even if it didn't totally entertain me. I think TNA tends to fall into a lull between Lockdown and Bound For Glory. Or maybe just Slammiversary and BFG. They want long running stories and big built matches for BFG but that means they either have to drag things out for months before or throw stuff out there that just feels pointless to kill time.

Kaz sizes up well with the heavyweight and has a pretty boy look, so I hardly think its just a lack of a gimmick. And he's been with TNA for a long time, was one of the X guys who got pushed years ago with Sabin and Shane/Bentley after the 1st wave of Lynn, AJ, and Ki ran through, and even had a short run with WWE as they saw something there. And he's done some really good work with guys like Cage and Angle and I think tends to step up his game and perform in the big matches like the Terrordome and the Ultimate X matches from Victory Road '08 (World X Cup) and '07 (where he broke out from the Serotonin angle and XXX reformed). But in between all of those moments he's boring and bland. He's not terribly good on the mic and there's nothing inherently engaging about him unless he's having a very good match. And this year long push TNA has given him has just been starting and stopping. He wins some big thing, gets a title shot, loses it, and then cools his heels for a month... then he wins something big, gets a title shot, loses it, and then cools his heels for a month... he wins something big, gets a title shot, loses, cools heels... And feuds with Black Reign and Bobby Roode as well as a tag team with Eric Young haven't done him much good as those are guys unable to even really keep themselves very interesting. I think he does fine when TNA has a plan for the guy and he has good dance partners and I think he's a fine choice as a breakthrough guy. But he doesn't seem to have "it" to be a star and the lack of direction TNA has had with him along with the constant push has just made him drag. Kaz is probably yet another example along with guys like Roode, Storm, and Harris of why TNA could use a midcard title besides the X belt because a lot of this boredom and start/stop push probably could have been alleviated if he was holding/feuding over an IC, US, or TV title. But what's done is done and after a year of Kaz being King of the Directionless Midcarders I'm as bored with him as I was with Roode or am with EY.

But to the best of my memory TNA's website has never really tried to be the legit news source that WWE.com sometimes tries to be. So in that case they wouldn't have reported the Orton suspension, just the kayfabed ankle breaking story. At least that's what my memory is telling me as I can't think of any legit stories TNA covered but can think of quite a few kayfabe ones they did. I don't know, I'm not really sticking up for it because I'm actually pretty sick of Kaz and him getting all emo or being confronted by some jerk like Bubba or being implicated as Karen's boyfriend... none of those things really appeal to me. It just strikes me that in order for something to be a "worked shoot" there has to be a "shoot" portion of this. And Kaz isn't really a guy has failed TNA repeatedly or was once released or anything that this story references. The "shoot" criticisms seem to stem entirely from TNA's website reporting it as real when from everything I remember TNA's website simple plays along with the story like the announcers do. Its probably a stupid angle. But I fail to see how its in anyway "bizarre", "shoot", or "working the net." Its not like we're reading how TNA and Kaz are telling everyone that they REALLY ARE done. In fact the common sentiment on the web is that's obviously a worked story seeing as how in the next breath they advertised him appearing on Impact to address it. It just seems like the equivalent of WWE.com announcing that Regal had been fired or that Cena was just "grazed."

This doesn't strike me so much as a worked shoot as it does just the TNA website keeping kayfabe. Which to the best of my memory it has always done with announcing Daniels' firing to posting open letters from AJ to Christian and always staying in character in the articles. I could be wrong on that, but that's all it seems to be to me. Kaz the character has asked for his release and thus TNA's website is reporting it as fact.

As far as the cameras thing for me at least its a matter of internal continuity. If you want invisible cameras, fine. I can suspend disbelief enough to play along just like I play along with the relative lack of legal action for really screwed up stuff. If you want to acknowledge the camera men, great. I'm happy to work with reality with you. Its going back and forth whenever it suits your means that drives me insane. Its just lazy and poor storytelling. WWE wants to be treating like any other TV show but I can't think of any TV show (with the possible exception of soap operas which are deemed the lowest form of TV by many) that would be allowed to change up the basic laws of reality within one episode just to avoid having to explain things. Or a segment like the Cena/JBL thing where a camera man clearly follows Cena out to the parking lot and then it converts to a 3 camera shoot that includes camera angles from places that just make no sense within the reality world of WWE. 24 and Lost can stretch the storytelling devices because they exist fully in a world of fiction. But WWE embraces reality when it suits them and uses it. So they simply don't get the play by the same rules. If they wanted to just tell a fully dramatic story using the common tools of TV and film that would be one thing. But they want the best of both worlds and complete freedom to do whatever they want. And as far as unrealistic stories go, I don't see the point in listing past ones to excuse it. Those annoyed me too. They are the constant low points of wrestling, IMO. Any time WWE, WCW, TNA, or anyone else has just gone over the top in a situation that didn't play out logically or have any kind of natural affects just turned me off. If they don't others, so be it. But as was said they could have conveyed the same basic message in plenty of ways without making it unbelievable. They just wanted to go for the gusto and IMO it ruined the story by being over the top and ridiculous. Its the same sort of criticism I'd lobby against any TV show or film that did something similarly over the top. I can't "calm down and enjoy" something that I don't enjoy. I'm simply not capable of enjoying such poor drama in such a poorly constructed universe. Let alone unbelievable production techniques that take me out of the story. I wouldn't on Lost either.

I fail to see the problem. If you watched the match and saw Joe's promo and following segment with Nash you saw that Joe destroyed Booker. That Booker offered the belt back to Joe and Joe punked him and told him he'd take it from him when he wanted to. He accused Booker of being unable to do what he did Sunday and not being the man he is. Joe was clearly in charge of that segment. He already beat the shit out of Booker so criticizing him not doing it again seems weird. Then later in the show it was revealed that even while Nash believes in him Booker is overwhelmed by the fact that Booker wouldn't give up on Sunday no matter how bad he beat him. So the story is that Joe absolutely physically dominated Booker... and Joe disrespected Booker and shut him up saying he didn't need him to GIVE the belt back... but Joe also wants to prove to himself that he can get that belt from Booker in the ring even though he knows full well he can TAKE it from Booker. I don't know, I just find it hard to see how Joe doesn't look strong no matter how unconventional this booking has been. EDIT: Not to mention that Joe DID beat Booker up again at the end of the show just as he threatened he world when he told Booker that he could keep the belt as long as he understand it made him a target to "the champ."

I don't think the motivations are that hard to read. Sharmell begged Joe to stop because Booker was taking a brutal beating and wasn't fighting back. It was the same reason Sting and the ref's tried to stop him. Sting hit Joe because he wanted to keep Joe from hurting Booker and he wasn't listening to reason. And Joe had pissed him off. Why he let Booker take the title is a question but at that stage he was probably just pissed enough at Joe to want him to suffer the indignity of having no title when he came to. Sharmell counted the pin because she and Booker are ridiculous heels who would actually regard that as reasonable. She saw an opportunity and took it. Even if it meant nothing officially Booker is the sort that will get something out of it for a week or a month while he can pretend to be champ and delude himself. I think the characters' motivations all make sense including Joe being ruthless and reverting back to the old Joe a bit when he was tired of being doubted. Its just the booking that's confusing as to what they wanted to happen. But I think everyone who said that TNA probably just backed themselves into a corner with having Booker as a heel in Houston have it right. They were trying to find a way to extend this, to give the Houston crowds something, and keep Joe strong.

Yeah, the reason that new wrestlers winning belts has so little impact is because it happens so often. In WWE OVW callups seem to get immediate title shots and victories so often that it loses any specialness. Dibiase and Rhodes won the titles within a month of being together? It would have more impact if Cade & Murdoch, MNM, and TWGTT hadn't had similar feats in recent memory. But Kong was a legitimately dominating champion who was on top of a strong division of women. The fan challenge progressed very naturally into trained wrestlers coming to TNA and taking their shot at Kong and women we recognized like Daffney fell to her. Taylor herself lost in her first shot. But she put up a bigger fight than any of the previous women and came back for more. I think its been a very good introduction that's nothing like the typical "new wrestler gets title shot, wins" stories we've seen so often the last few years. The champ was strong, the challenger made sense, she failed on her first go, and her wins have been upsets that she's just outwrestled Kong with. Which in and of itself is interesting because even Kim who has defeated Kong didn't really out wrestle her in the way Taylor has. Taylor has learned to counter her signature moves and catch her by surprise. Obviously you don't have to like the story but I'm a big fan. But I think its clear from the fan reactions in Orlando and Houston and the reactions on boards including this one that fans aren't "rolling their eyes" at the Taylor victories. Almost all of the reaction I've seen has been positive.

Angle may say he doesn't want his wife back but its abundantly clear by his actions that he remains emotionally invested. He's angry and jealous and that's why he's lashing out at AJ. AJ cares about Karen and is angry at how Angle has treated her. He's also angry at how Angle and Co have treated him and wants basic revenge. I don't see why it doesn't make sense when its the basic wrestling story if a face fighting because the heels keep coming at him and have made an enemy. Just because the catalyst is a woman doesn't change that. Now the end is what's unclear because while AJ and Karen have insisted they aren't together the story the TNA announcers have clearly told us is that they have their doubts. So I don't know if its revealed that AJ and Karen are together after all. If that makes AJ a heel. If Karen turns on AJ in the end to realign with Kurt. If Kurt eventually sees the error of his ways and makes amends turning face. I have no idea. But it does appear to be going somewhere and the complaint appears to be that the end isn't predictable enough. Which strikes me as sort of funny. I also don't think its terribly fair to criticize them "jobbing" Kong out Taylor. Kong's been pretty well protected with the 2 losses last week as she commanded both matches and in the process they've made a star out of Taylor. Now your acceptance of this may be based on how deserving you think Taylor is of getting this rub, but its one over character getting another over. And Kong has managed to retain much of her character and dominance in doing so. I admit to not knowing what the story is with Joe/Booker/Sting but I don't think the 10 minutes it has played out proved anything, let alone that they don't know where they're going with it. It basically started a story and while I have no idea where that story is going or even what it is, it seems logical to at least give it to the opening segment of Impact to try and see if they actually have a plan or if they were just throwing stuff at the wall. The weeks of Sting build and months of Nash/Joe build would suggest that they DO have a plan. Whether you like any of these directions is another matter entirely.

Yeah, I think its a really mixed bag. Joe's behavior was good. He had the proper motivation to keep wailing away on Booker and to ignore Sting and the refs and this is the edge to his character that a lot of people have been complaining has been missing for awhile. Ruthless and not giving a damn. Sting and the refs wanting to stop Joe from hurting Booker made sense. Even the bat shots from Sting, although one could argue that he should have stopped Booker from swiping the gold. The problem seems to come with why the refs never called for the bell. Whether its Joe being DQed for the beating he was delivering, Booker being declared unfit to continue, or Booker being DQed for the interference of Sharmell or Sting. No bell made it all confusing as hell. And my guess is that's how they carry it on Impact as there's a bunch of different ways Cornette COULD interpret this but none of them would be really fair. So I'm kind of expecting the title to be held up and a rematch to happen at Hard Justice. But I don't know. As was said, if this was a unique thing in TNA it would sit much better. But its not and it feels like more of the bad stuff we've gotten. So I just still have no idea how to react to it as I like the way it took Joe's character, appreciate Sting's involvement, and get why they wanted to make Houston fans happy. But still have no idea how I feel. The opening match was awesome though and the whole card was a really good show. The final 10 minutes were just confusing as hell and almost made me forget that.

I think they've named episodes for most of their 6 years, but for at least 6 months they've been opening the show with the episode title.

Yeah, bleachers are no alcohol and they're closed off from the rest of the stadium. You're going to see the game on a bench, that's it (you can get food and soda). No taking in the stadium or getting drunk. And you deal with bleacher fans, many of whom show up drunk and sneak booze in and who like to give people crap (especially wearing opposing colors). The view is fine though. You'll miss a little of what's directly in front of you but just plays on the warning track. And you get as good a view of home plate and the infield as you'd expect to get from that angle and distance. Unlike upperdecks you don't have the height to look down on the field, you're looking more or less straight out at home player from 400+ feet away. If the goal is to visit Yankee Stadium for the first time and take it in, bleachers seats are good only to say you watched a game and see the field and inside of the stadium. If you actually want to see Monument Park and walk around the stadium a bit and really take it in then its probably best to spring for an upperdeck seat at least. The worst seats in the house will only cost you $20-30 on stubhub and there's a good chance that you could purchase them for less at the game. A Wednesday Blue Jay, Ranger, or whatever game will cost you $5 in the upperdecks behind home plate if you time it right (but obviously if you're not a NYer and are just visiting you don't want to risk that). They'll give you the freedom to go wherever you want in the Stadium and a comfortable enough view of the game. Bleachers tend to be for the regular visitor who just wants to go to the game for cheap. I'm pretty sure you can take a tour of Monument Park before the game separate of the Bleachers if you'd like.

It just comes off a bit odd that you root for 6 of the 14 teams in the AL and half of the AL West. Most fans tend to root for A team, or maybe a couple of teams separated into different leagues or divisions. You're pretty much the only person I've ever encountered to say that he/she roots for direct rivals within a division, since that tends to sort of dilute the nature of fandom. Personally I think you can be a fan who you like, but you seem like a very casual baseball fan who just sort of watches and picks a team to cheer. Which is why 8 teams is fun because you can basically turn on any AL team on any given night and say "Hey, my team is playing!" And "your team" is probably gonna win at least a few times every night. If you enjoy, more power to you. But it pretty much goes against the things which most sports fans believe in. I know fans who take crap for rooting for a playoff team once their team has been eliminated just because they like having the rooting interest or fans who take crap because they root for two teams in different leagues because they've spent half of their live in a different city than the one they grew up in. Having almost 50% of a league as "your team" to start with is going to result in raised eyebrows.

The Johan comments are just kind of insane. Last year he was "average"? By who's standards? He posted a 3.33 ERA (good for 13th best in MLB amongst Qualified SP), struck out 234 (3rd in MLB), and had a 1.07 WHIP (2nd in MLB). He had a 130 ERA+. This season he's got a 133 ERA+, 3.04 ERA (10th in MLB) and 91 K (5th). He's got a bad WHIP at 1.21 which isn't a good thing but which is also really flukey from his career. To call him "average" and "ok" is just insane and a clear example of perception being reality. Fact is he's been one of the best pitchers in baseball in 2008 and has been THE best pitcher over the last 4 or 5 years. The most criticism lobbied against the guy was that his great 2007 season wasn't as good as his insane prior seasons. He's given you some of the best numbers in baseball and 11 quality starts in 15 games. I'm not sure what you expected from him. I don't want to insult you but perhaps being a fan of more than a quarter of the teams in baseball and doing so (by your admission) only casually has left you with a somewhat shallow outlook on 1 of those 8 teams that you follow when not following hockey.

The "trying to put together a Spanish team" theory is ridiculous. He's the same guy who brought in Willie, Wagner, Maine, LoDuca, Schneider, Church, and plenty others, held onto Heilman, and just appointed Manuel manager. It was a theory started by Anna Benson of all people after she was exiled to Baltimore. Beltran's been a pretty damn good player so it seems odd to question his signing because you don't like his personality. Same goes for Reyes but he isn't Minaya's. And Delgado is a lot of hindsight because not too many people were expecting him to have an insane decline like he has and he's a gut that Mets fans and media wanted Minaya to get 1 season earlier (and he had nearly a career year the season before the Mets got him). Minaya's made quite a few mistakes and clearly there are holes on this team, not the least of them a poor decision to rely on Alou staying healthy. But he's got a pretty healthy list of successes too, including getting Johan Santana for a package considerably less than what anyone expected even during the process when rumors were swirling of lesser deals anyway. I'm kind of amazed how high Mets fans were on this team 10 months ago and yet now Minaya put together a bunch of losers when its basically the exact same team + the best pitcher in baseball. Obviously the last 3 months or so of baseball is gonna sour you on the team and the management, but I'm not sure I've ever seen fans do a 180 like this so quickly. That's probably not true. The back and forth NY does on A-Rod can make your head spin.

Huh, I totally don't remember Lee's first tenure with them. I remember him tagging with one of the Harris' for a little while and feuding briefly with AMW. Then Lee disappeared and came back leaner. Don't recall the first go around before Kobain. There was definitely a run with Sinn after Lee though. I seem to recall it was the two of them backing up Douglas/Vampiro vs Raven and the Gathering before they turned. And yeah, Douglas was just "working with the Devil" and I couldn't really remember if the Gathering ever officially got the New Church title. But I just figured list the guys and be done. Thanks for the correction.

The NY situation made it damn near impossible to keep Willie there. Not just that the media kept asking about his job security and that Omar was unwilling to say it was secure. The loss to the Cardinals followed by the September crash followed by the poor start to this season just had fans and media all over him. The team is believed to lack fire and cohesion and you always look to the manager when that happens. Willie handled the media very poorly and gave the fans no hope as he always gave this "we're fighting" and "I think we played a good game" responses that the fans hate when the team is losing. And Omar and Willie never seemed to be on the same page anyway as they clashed over coaches and Omar's seeing desire to have Julio Franco on the team as a player-coach. It was just a bad marriage that clearly had to end sooner or later. The handling of it just looks horrible though. And the Mets are being raked over the coals for the 3 AM firing after a W on the first day of a West Coast road trip. By the same media that basically wanted Willie fired anyway. Willie was at most part of the problem just because he couldn't get on the same page as Omar and didn't seem capable of drawing the team together. Whether another manager can or whether player changes need to be made, who knows? But this was just one of those situations where the team is messed up and the manager is always going to be the first to go.

The Disciples of the New Church was Mitchell's stable that eventually wore down to a full time tag team. The Wall was Malice who was the original centerpiece of the stable while Slash and Tempest (Devon Storm) were the tag team. Malice left and fromthen on they were basically just a tag team. Tempest was replaced by Cobain (Flash Flanagan) who was in turn replaced by Brian Lee. Lee and Slash stuck together and had a nice run. The group included Shane Douglas, Vampiro, Mike Awesome, Sinn (who is a WWE Developmental now), and the Gathering (CM Punk & Julio Dinero) at various stages.

Yeah, the Naturals were weird. They had this great chemistry with AMW and its what got them attention. And then they'd go off and work with other teams and they'd be boring. And then then a match with AMW and it would be good. Then boring with everyone else. And then it became strangely clear that they couldn't be entertaining with anyone except AMW. It was weird. Candido and Douglas tried to help but they just didn't seem like a compelling team once they stepped in the ring. Unless AMW was there. I loved the New Church and it took me months to accept that I was watching Brian Lee and Wolfie D. And completely agreed that Slash was the unspoken hero of that company for the first year or so. He was the constant core of the New Church who could be counted on to work a good match that was a bit different from the X Division fare every night. I enjoyed Slash & Synn as well but Killdozer just looked better than he ever did in his career (even if physically he looked like he was dying of a drug addiction). It was an awesome team that unfortunately seemed to just make other teams. Back when Mitchell had Judas and others running around him I kept hoping that someone would think it a good idea to bring Slash back into the fold.

I did very much like the way that AJ and Daniels found to match and show cohesiveness without actually putting on matching outfits. Simply wearing the same colors that they tended to alternate and doing the synchronized hood move in the entrance definitely made them feel like a team. Part of me thinks that the odd couple nature of Roode and Storm actually works with the separate entrances. Having one of them sacrifice some of their identity (or both) to make them feel cohesive seems to take away from that very aspect that seems interesting. But like I said, I do prefer that tag teams find some way to look like a tag team. I don't know.

I just don't think the Batista comparison is terribly apt. He was a pretty fresh talent in WWE who had been booked reasonably well on SD, even if in an uncompelling way. He allied with Flair and an alliance with HHH was very natural and foreshadowed before Evolution formed. And when he and Orton did join they weren't expected to be the equals of main eventers. They were the future and part of the numbers game that Evolution played. Cade has spent years on the RAW roster and we have an established opinion of him. Of his personality, ability, and place on the card. He went from tag wrestler (which is about as low as one gets on RAW) to standing toe to toe with Cena, HHH, and Jericho in the blink of an eye. That's disrupting if nothing else. But you can't blame people for being non-plussed at an over wrestler being elevated so abruptly with no explanation. But I do look forward to hearing some explanation and motivation next week. Because there is a very good and logical story to be told if they want to.

Yeah, I absolutely think a tremendous story could come out of this very easily. Its just that Cade hasn't been built up for 5 years so the guy who ended RAW standing over Cena and HHH is the same guy we've been watching all this time. There was no character change, no fleshing out of his story, no building him up, no winning streak, no foreshadowing. I'm not even sure they've once mentioned HBK training him on air. It just came completely out of left field. So we're left with what WWE gave us until next week when they hopefully add some of these genuinely interesting elements (or some of their own). Which they may very well do but it doesn't really change last night's show.

I want to be excited about young talent being elevated and them playing on the history of HBK and Cade outside of WWE. On the possibility of London and Kendrick being involved. On roles Flair, Batista, or Hardy might play in this story. If I allow myself to I can dream up a lot of crazy things like Danielson, Wargames, Horsemen, the death of the spinner belt, the elevation of the Tag and IC titles, the making of new stars, and a golden age. But as was said, I'm stuck looking at a guy who isn't very over or exciting making a run in with no foreshadowing, explanation, or story. So at best I'm waiting a week for some explanation to see how I feel about this.

Couldn't you have just let it die down without having the final say on the matter and asking people not to argue with you? Seems like the easiest way to avoid an argument is to not participate in it. Especially since it seemed to have moved past you and enough people agreed with your basic premise and were making the argument that it wasn't about disagreeing with you. But since you were the person the bring up the issue in the first place it ends up coming off as "Here's what I think, but I'm not going to talk about it further so just listen to me and accept it." If you don't want to talk about it, don't. Don't bring it up, write a paragraph, and then write another on how you'd like to change the subject (that you started) because your mind won't be changed. Bringing up a complaint you've made numerous times and then refusing to talk about it is a good way to make hard feelings. Especially when you lace it with an antagonistic comment like "I'm tired of talking about the million of things wrong with TNA." If you want to talk about the positive, simply talk about the positive. Don't bring up the negative and then ask to change the subject, because that just comes off as phony. Just my 2 cents. Feel free to leave it.